Morris (US)  has just finished a late night of work with Jean-Marie, his visiting colleague from France. Morris said: “next time you visit the USA, you should come over to my home for dinner”. Jean-Marie wonders how Morris can be so dishonest, since Jean Marie has already  been in the USA for ten days without having been invited.

Art (US) asked Wang (China) “what does this quarter look like” on a concall with 6 other participants . Wang said “looks good”. After the concall, Wang called Art and told him that the quarter looked bad. Art told himself that Wang cannot be trusted as he is a pathological fibber.

Oya (Japan) call Max in Detroit and told him emotionally, “Max-san, if you do not fly over 3 engineers now to Japan, the customer will throw us out”. Max thought to himself, “Oya always bs’s to get me to act with a false sense of urgency because he thinks we so not care about his Japanese customer”.

Peter (UK) told Moshe (Israel) that “that’s a good idea which needs more work”. Moshe wrote off Peter as a sweet-talking phony.

Stan (US)  told Miyamoto (Japan) that the product was “commercially deployable”. When 4000 bugs were discovered, Miyamoto thought he had been stung because Stan claimed the bugs were not “revenue impacting”.

Bill (US) corrected Zhang (China) in front of Zhang” subordinates on a minor factual issue.  Zhang believes Bill’s “vulgar correction” means than he has lost Bill’s trust, because face to Zhang is a more important truth than stupid facts.

So, when working globally, leave your personal judgement about truth at home. Understand the cultural context which basically says, truths are  often culturally defined artifacts.

1-They blend discussion, arguing and negotiation at the same time. Americans appear to resent the constant negotiation and the elephant (intuition as per Haidt) leading the driver (ratio).

2-Israeli organizations often tell  clients what they really need which upsets their ‘satisfying clients’ American counterparts.

3-They misinterpret American unwillingness to be blunt as a weakness. They do not often understand cultural clues, forcing the Americans to be “overly” direct.

4-They reopen oral decisions, not understanding that this is a trust buster for Americans, although not for Israelis.

5-Israelis are far less politically correct that their American counterparts. And even when the Israelis adopt the PC lingo, it’s more fake than real. The Americans smell it from a mile.

The degree of organizational formality manifests itself in the use of language, dress codes, existence and use of formal titles, the way rooms and offices are organized, seating arrangements, office design, and many, many other things and artifacts, big and small.
Formality enable some people to feel comfortable to do business in a global setting; others need informality.
• There are cultures where people need to break out of formality in order to feel comfortable enough to do business. “Just call me Bob; I gotta get this company out of the muck soon-so let’s get a move on it!”….in first meeting, with sleeves rolled up.
• There are cultures where people need to booze in order to relay messages that cannot be relayed due the formal etiquette (and linguistic structure) of everyday business. “You know Oya-san, this idea of yours really needs more work”…..after 5th drink.
• There are cultures where the only way to do business is within a framework of strict formalities. “Dr Muller, sir. I am ready to give you the report”, says Hans who has been working under “Dr” Muller for ten years.
When OD is practiced in a global setting, the degree of formality needs to be adjusted; this is often a daunting task.
Here are some rules of thumb for an OD consultant in a global diverse setting.
• As a facilitator, overdress, all the time. Many populations do not respect a facilitator who is casual.
• In a meeting, you need to relate to people as they relate to you. Call Bill by the name of Bill and call Dr Muller by the name of Dr Muller. Decide how to present yourself, and let people call you whatever they want.
• Introduce people as if you are a host; do not ask them to introduce one another before you say a few words.
• Make sure to prepare people one on one before more formal meetings as much as possible. Use more structured meetings as a default, slowly migrating to less structured as you see the level of tolerance for this developing. Unstructured meetings are harder to run in a very diverse setting.
• If there is a gap in the way people address one another, bridge the gap at the beginning. “Bill and Dr Muller, how does each of you see this issue developing and what are the gaps? Then, start to translate intent. “Dr Muller, when you call Bill by the name Mr. Thomas, he feels uncomfortable”. “Bill, Dr Muller is only called Hans at his golf club, so you make him feel out of the aquarium”..
• Avoid humour because it is too informal. (I ignore this advice all the time).
• Always issue a formal written summary, with action items and ownership.

Travel policy has now been changed; business class travel is permitted only for the second trip each quarter.

Charles from Ohio complains but adheres to the policy. He has started looking around for a new assignment in the company where no travel is needed.

Edna from Tel Aviv has requested an exception, “unless the first trip is more than 6 hours”. She is presently trying to change company policy, bombarding the corporate with emails and threats.

Ratana from Huahin Thailand said nothing. Nevertheless Ratana started a job search that very evening, since all her trips are gruelling 19 hour flights to New York.

Abhay from Delhi has a friend who works in corporate travel. Leveraging his relationships, Abhay orders his first quarterly ticket at the very last second on flights where the coach class is full, and as per corporate policy, gets an upgraded flight, “if the flight is a customer visit”, which it always is.

Things Are Foul at This Chicken Farm – A Case Study

Key People and Groups

Background

On March 20, 2018, I visited MBD Poultry Farm, located near the Israeli-Syrian border. The temperature had already exceeded 100°F by 7:30 in the morning. Although the border itself appeared calm, the atmosphere inside the farm was anything but peaceful.

MBD is the largest poultry farm in northern Israel. Its owner, David, has spent 35 years building the business and is now trying to reduce his involvement in day-to-day operations. Most management responsibility has recently been transferred to Alexandra, an immigrant from the former Soviet Union who arrived in Israel in 1973.

Alexandra holds a PhD in Agricultural Science and previously served in food transport logistics in the Soviet Army. Since taking over as Operations Manager, the workplace climate has deteriorated sharply.

Problems Emerging at the Farm

Since Alexandra assumed control:

• Sick leave has increased significantly.
• The new time clock system has been sabotaged 23 times.
• Numerous maintenance problems have appeared.
• Employee morale has deteriorated.

At the same time:

• Production has increased by 75%.
• Market share has grown substantially.
• Shipment accuracy has improved dramatically.

David invited me to assess the situation and make recommendations.

Alexandra’s Management Approach

Alexandra believes David was too lenient with employees.

According to her:

• Russian-speaking workers became accustomed to arriving late, leaving early, and avoiding difficult work.
• Native Israeli workers constantly challenge authority by asking “lama?” (“why?”), instead of obeying instructions.
• Arab workers were improperly paid for arriving early and waiting before shifts began.

She stated bluntly:

“It will take a year, but I will whip them into a team.”

Alexandra insists David must completely withdraw from management so she can enforce discipline consistently.

Her approach emphasizes:

• strict schedules,
• formal accountability,
• obedience to authority,
• centralized control,
• measurable productivity.

Resistance From Employees

Igor’s Perspective

Igor, a former Ukrainian-born supervisor, criticized Alexandra’s leadership style.

He argued that she is technically competent but lacks people-management skills. Alexandra removed him from his supervisory role, causing embarrassment among his coworkers, who mock him for “taking orders from a babushka.”

Igor also has a personal connection to David: he is married to David’s cousin, and the two men regularly run together on weekends.

Inam’s Perspective

Inam, an Arab female worker, focused on issues of trust and cultural misunderstanding.

Under David’s leadership:

• employees operated largely on trust,
• problems were handled quietly,
• disputes were mediated informally by senior workers.

Alexandra introduced a formal time clock system and monitors attendance daily, which many workers view as humiliating and distrustful.

Inam also explained that Alexandra does not understand the transportation realities of Arab village workers. The women travel together in organized village transportation accompanied by a male escort, and the workers themselves do not control the truck’s timetable.

As Inam explained:

“We do not set the timetable of the village truck.”

Previous Intervention

David had previously hired a consultant who attempted to improve conditions through group discussions and outdoor team-building exercises. These efforts failed to create meaningful change.

Core Management Dilemma

The central issue at MBD is not productivity alone. Alexandra’s methods are producing measurable operational success, but at the cost of morale, trust, and workplace stability.

David now faces a difficult decision between two fundamentally different management philosophies:

The challenge for David is determining whether a multicultural workforce can be managed successfully through a single strict system, or whether different employee groups require different leadership approaches.

Michael Wu is the new EVP for Israel & Singapore Offshore R&D Division in a San Jose based software firm.

Avi is the Head of the Israel  R&D centre. Since Michael’s appointment, Avi has been in constant contact with Michael’s boss, with whom he studied at Stanford. Avi shows low responsiveness to Michael’s emails and when Michael gives marching orders, Avi argues.

Michael hired Naomi, a coach from Billings Oregon. Naomi flew to Israel 3 times, met with Avi and planned an intervention called “Mutual Adaptation in a Changing Environment” ;  Avi showed up for two meetings and then checked out.

Michael then hired a consultant who was brought up an educated in North America, but was also Israeli with a long military career. Michael had a one hour conversation, which was “ten times more expense than the hourly rate paid to Naomi” , yet proved very effective. One month later, Avi was fully aligned with and respected Michael; Mike said “we have come a long way”.

Here is an email Mike sent to the consultant,

Hi A—n,

It has been a month now since we spoke and you guided me how to deal with Avi.

I was very reticent about inviting him to fly in from Israel 17 hours on coach class  to San Jose for a half hour meeting with me. I was even more reticent about telling him that “if you mess with me one more time, you’re fucked; now my friend, let’s close this issue and move on-followed by lunch” during which I give him a major project! But it worked. We are well aligned. And as you mentioned with bluntness, he was neither offended nor intimidated. He no longer thought me to be weak.

Thank you so much.

Michael Wu

Tel Aviv based start up TVS purchased a US based competitor USC in the field of IT marketing services for bloggers. TVS is fast innovative, sloppy, undisciplined and years “ahead of the curve”. Their product line is super sophisticated, yet not fully stable.

USC was solid, stable, close to the customer and moderately innovative. Slowly they were losing market share, but highly profitable when TVS purchased them.

TVS initially fired most USC US-based developers and retained their sales force. The US based sales force was reticent about pushing “half cooked crappy products” into “our sophisticated customer base. “If we sell TVS products as they presently function, we will be sued.” Slowly but surely, TVS replaced the entire US based sales force with ex-pat Israelis, who were more willing to take risks. And take risks they did, losing two thirds of the US based clientele in a year!

In Taiwan and China based clients of USC however, TVS quadrupled their sales, without “ex-pating” one Israeli, The Taiwanese and Chinese offices complained that the Israelis were still a bit risk evasive, albeit less than their former American masters. One Taiwanese salesperson said, “as long as we can maintain customer relationships as we seriously commit to increase product performance, we can help the clients drive innovation with our cutting edge products.”

James Wight is the Head of R&D in a San Francisco based software company.

James has all his remote site managers in town for a three day planning session.

Igor heads the Ukrainian site, Jean-Jacques heads the French site, Haim heads the Israel site and Oya heads the Japanese site.

The US based senior VP of HR, Valery White, asked to address James’s global team. As Val spoke, James took a call to distance himself.

Valery made 5 points.

1. There is a need to use politically correct terminology: chairperson, not chairman; parenthood, not motherhood;  utility, not man-hole; sexual labourer, not ho-ho; not BC but BCC.
2. Managers should not smoke with workers in front of the offices on the sidewalks, to avoid giving a poor leadership example.
3. Terms like Mister, Sir or Boss are not aligned with the egalitarian culture of the company.
4. HR is your business partner. There is now a call center in Tirana Albania at your service.
5. Even within an office, all emails need to be in English only. In the dining hall when a corporate guest is present, only English should be spoken, “in the spirit of one company”.

After 20 minutes, Valery took a short “bio-break”. When she returned, no one but James remained. They were all still out on the sidewalk smoking and James was still on his call.

Mr. Lau from Hubei China and Mr McDougal (from Cincinnati) are about to sign a contract. The contract is for 200 million dollars over the next year, with Mr Lau purchasing equipment from the American McDougal.

Mr. Lau has one request. “I have a son and  I would like him to work in your company. Keep an eye on him;  he can go to US to learn English if you sponsor him”.

Mr. McDougal thinks: I cannot trust this guy. He is totally corrupt.

Mr. Lau thinks: I cannot trust this guy. I give him 200 million dollars business and he does not value our relationship.

The deal falls apart.